Skip to content

CLDSRV-992: Bound and settle the 1000-object writes in Multi-Object Delete setup - #6279

Draft
anurag4DSB wants to merge 2 commits into
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suitefrom
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-multiobjectdelete-bounded-writes
Draft

CLDSRV-992: Bound and settle the 1000-object writes in Multi-Object Delete setup#6279
anurag4DSB wants to merge 2 commits into
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suitefrom
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-multiobjectdelete-bounded-writes

Conversation

@anurag4DSB

@anurag4DSB anurag4DSB commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Intent: why does this change exist?

NEW FIX, with one part hand-written in place of a backport. The Multi-Object Delete setup uploads 1000 objects behind what looks like a concurrency limiter of 20, and it is not one: against an instrumented stub it peaks at 999 concurrent puts. That is the ServiceUnavailable in run 33681270087. Clears CLDSRV-992 row F10, all seven failures.

System impact: what's affected, including downstream?

One functional test file, setup and teardown only. No product code, no assertions touched. development/9.3 needs only the concurrency half and has #6278; it already has the cleanup half.

Preserved behavior: what explicitly stays the same?

Still 1000 objects, still nominally 20 at a time, and the hook still fails with the first error it saw. Every test body is untouched.

Intended change: what's different after this PR?

The limiter becomes a fixed pool of 20 workers draining a shared queue, so concurrency is bounded and every put has settled before the hook returns, failure path included. Separately, all four cleanup hooks now empty the bucket before deleting it. The 9.3 line gained that in 9eb5777a8, but that commit is an aws-sdk v3 migration of the whole file, so this is the equivalent written for the v2 client and nothing else from it. Together these explain the run exactly: one ServiceUnavailable then six BucketNotEmpty, because all four suites share the bucket name multi-object-delete-234-634.

Verification: how do we know this worked, or how would we know if it didn't?

The 999-vs-20 peak is measured, not inferred: the original limiter ran against an instrumented stub, and the replacement measures a peak of exactly 20 with nothing in flight at return, on the happy path and with an injected mid-run failure. s3c-ft-tests-v1 stressed 10x on this branch.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello anurag4dsb,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/bypass_source_branch_lineage Bypass the cross-branch contamination check
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-992 contains:

  • None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I expected to find at least:

  • 9.2.36.1

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-992, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.36%. Comparing base (4bbb2af) to head (28d0696).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@                                       Coverage Diff                                       @@
##           improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suite    #6279   +/-   ##
===============================================================================================
  Coverage                                                           84.36%   84.36%           
===============================================================================================
  Files                                                                 204      204           
  Lines                                                               13162    13162           
===============================================================================================
  Hits                                                                11104    11104           
  Misses                                                               2058     2058           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 69.95% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-multiobjectdelete-bounded-writes branch from 76f47da to 20ac8a3 Compare September 8, 2026 06:32
…elete setup

The "Multi-Object Delete Success" beforeEach uploads 1000 objects behind what
looks like a concurrency limiter of 20. It is not one. objects.map() invokes all
1000 async calls synchronously; the first 20 push and the other 980 all park on
the same `await Promise.race(queued)`. When the first put settles they all wake,
and each splices one entry off the head of the queue regardless of whether that
entry had settled, so the queue empties, every waiter's `while` test goes false,
and the remaining puts fire together. Running the limiter against an
instrumented stub gives a peak of 999 concurrent puts against an intended 20.

That is the ServiceUnavailable seen in run 33681270087: a thousand simultaneous
puts, not twenty.

It also explains why one failure becomes seven. Promise.all rejects on the first
error while the other puts are still in flight, so the hook throws with writes
outstanding, and the bucket cannot be deleted. All four suites in this file
share the bucket name multi-object-delete-234-634, so once it is left behind
with objects in it, every later suite's cleanup fails with BucketNotEmpty --
which is exactly the shape of the run: one ServiceUnavailable followed by six
BucketNotEmpty.

Two changes, both already present on development/9.3 and newer in one form or
another:

- Replace the limiter with a fixed pool of 20 workers draining a shared queue.
  Concurrency is genuinely bounded and every put is settled before the hook
  returns, on the failure path too, so teardown can no longer race them.
- Empty the bucket before deleting it in all four cleanup hooks. The 9.3 line
  gained this in 9eb5777, but that commit is an aws-sdk v3 migration of the
  whole file and is not something to cherry-pick onto 9.2; this is the
  equivalent written for the v2 client, and nothing else from it.

Clears CLDSRV-992 row F10 (all seven failures).

Issue: CLDSRV-992
Stacked on the uploadPartCopy fixture fix so the stress signal is not polluted
by row F4/F8. Dropped before review. Precedent: a3847d6.
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-multiobjectdelete-bounded-writes branch from 20ac8a3 to 28d0696 Compare September 8, 2026 10:58
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB changed the base branch from hotfix/9.2.36 to improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suite September 8, 2026 10:58
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suite branch from 8245437 to 4bbb2af Compare September 8, 2026 11:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants